Profiling?

zekester · Apr 1, 2011

If it is legal to OC a weapon in Missouri...and yes I know the exceptions...isn't a stop by the LEO..profiling?

Just popped into my head and can't remember anyone bring it up.

LMTD · Apr 1, 2011

zekester said:
If it is legal to OC a weapon in Missouri...and yes I know the exceptions...isn't a stop by the LEO..profiling?

Just popped into my head and can't remember anyone bring it up.

1. Not if called to investigate.
2. three levels of contact, Casual, Detention, and Arrest.

Police officers are free to speak to anyone just as you and I are, they only fall under restrictions when they have RAS and step to detention stage and beyond and that is how it should be.

I am nor should any citizen be offended by an officer saying hello etc.

There is no doubt that going from Casual to Detention would be an easier path for an OC person as they would have "visible means" to be a safety risk to the officer. That does not satisfy RAS however, it would certainly be a portion of it if a person did or said something along with it to indicate criminal activities might be a future or past concern.

For a lack of better terms, OC is not justification for RAS alone, however it can most certainly be a piece of it.

afcarry · Apr 1, 2011

LMTD said:
There is no doubt that going from Casual to Detention would be an easier path for an OC person as they would have "visible means" to be a safety risk to the officer. That does not satisfy RAS however, it would certainly be a portion of it if a person did or said something along with it to indicate criminal activities might be a future or past concern.

Disagree. Openly carrying a firearm does proves capability, but carrying any weapon proves capability, concealed as well. Would you then based on that extend your argument to say that a CCW on a driver's license or even simply printing be a contributor to RAS? My point is that anybody can have capability, not just those who OC, so to say that we as OCers lead LEOs to develop RAS is incorrect.

zekester · Apr 1, 2011

I can see LMTD point...OC may lead to from casual to something else, only because ignorance of the of the LEO...is it right?, of course not....but understandable ....

Now to be clear....I say "understandable",,,,not legal....

Because of the "legal" aspect....very much profiling..IMHO

Z

afcarry · Apr 1, 2011

I agree. Only out of ignorance of the LEO, rather than legal support. Its just important to realize that an LEO can claim RAS based on anything. If he "suspects" aggression in a tone of voice, of if you motion in any way that is interpreted as hostile or even suspicious, its RAS, not just the fact that you have a weapon. Thats my whole argument. I believe, technically, that if you even think of committing a crime, its considered meditation and is then illegal also. So if the officer is led to believe that you have even considered committing a crime, then he has RAS. Thats why we say carrying a weapon is for self defense, because use of lethal force in an unavoidable act of self defense is completely legal.

zekester · Apr 1, 2011

well...perhaps

But the law is still on your side..

52 F.3d 194
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-1675.
United States Court of Appeals

In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

The way I read this...if an innocent person is apt to react to the LEO in the way that most would...still not RAS...

And me personally, if I am stopped for no reason...hell yeah I am going to be angry.

Kingfish · Apr 1, 2011

"Profiling"...Yes. But not based on a protected class (race, sex, disability, etc.) so, no culpability on the part of the LEO (assuming a tier 1 encounter.)

Now, if a LEO walked up to a black man with tattoos and ASKED to see ID just BECAUSE he was a black man with tattoos then the LEO would be in trouble. A LEO could walk up to an OCer and ASK for ID all he wants as long as he does not demand it then all is good.

LMTD · Apr 1, 2011

Lets get it real clear real fast!

afcarry said:
Disagree. Openly carrying a firearm does proves capability, but carrying any weapon proves capability, concealed as well. Would you then based on that extend your argument to say that a CCW on a driver's license or even simply printing be a contributor to RAS? My point is that anybody can have capability, not just those who OC, so to say that we as OCers lead LEOs to develop RAS is incorrect.

1. Printing would be contributing to RAS, again it would not qualify IMHO as the whole boat but it would be mentioned as part of it in many situations.
2. CCW on drivers license in no way provides evidence of capability of danger, obvious presence of a weapon DOES.
3. I NEVER stated anything of the sort, don't twist stuff into what it never was, it looks silly.

Action, intent, capability so to speak. An officer can not articulate significant danger to others or himself with intent alone.

While an officer may not be able to articulate concern you are going to shoot someone if he can not state that he noticed a weapon, but if you are openly carrying one he can certainly clearly articulate that because of X and Y along with the obvious presence of a weapon he determined detainment and investigation was warranted aka he needed XY and Z.

None of them alone mean squat, all tied together it is RAS.

Guns alone do not make RAS, nor does speech, but guns and speech can certainly make it in a heart beat.

REALteach4u · Apr 1, 2011

zekester said:
I can see LMTD point...OC may lead to from casual to something else, only because ignorance of the of the LEO...is it right?, of course not....but understandable ....

Now to be clear....I say "understandable",,,,not legal....

Because of the "legal" aspect....very much profiling..IMHO

Z

Ignorance on the part of the LEO cannot be claimed and is NO excuse. Remember, ignorance of the law IS NOT a defense in court.

The problem is and always has been that the departments are either intentionally not training their officers how to act in regards to lawful carry or intentionally telling them to stop ANYONE reported as carrying a firearm (OC and CCW alike).

The fact is that LEOs all too often are caught playing the card: I'm a cop and I know the law, so don't try to tell me the law. When the reality is that they don't know the law like they think they do, they haven't been properly trained on the law like they think they have (some dep'ts are teaching the wrong thing intentionally), and outright refuse to be educated when someone from the public has a greater knowledge of their rights and the laws that apply to the situation.

It really ticks them off when you have the statutes in-hand and say things like: Feel free to keep those for your own reference, I have other copies.

LMTD · Apr 1, 2011

Wearing a blue shirt and carrying a blueray dvd player is perfectly legal.

Carrying a blueray dvd player wearing a blue shirt across the parking lot of a Wal-Mart that just called in a report of a man wearing a blue shirt stealing a DVD player IS RAS.

A firearm is not RAS, seen or unseen. If it is unseen, not unlike any other evidence, it can not be used as part of RAS for the stop, concealed or openly carried, identifying a person is carrying a firearm it most certainly can enter into RAS.

Openly carrying a firearm brings it into play every time, there is no way to argue it out, it is part of the bigger picture, alone it means nothing, but do not for one second think it will not be part of the mistake or accuracy of an officer developing RAS.

By choosing to openly carry a firearm, you had better understand that and conduct yourself accordingly. That means with everyone not just LEO's. Avoiding any and all confrontations through extremely polite behavior is highly recommended then no one may feel threatened.

The goal is establishing acceptance of normal activities and exercising one's rights, not battling out wits with a LEO.

afcarry · Apr 1, 2011

REALteach4u said:
Ignorance on the part of the LEO cannot be claimed and is NO excuse. Remember, ignorance of the law IS NOT a defense in court.

If I do something illegal, yes, ignorance is no defense whatsoever. If a police officer does something illegal, I guarantee its a very effective defense in court...for him.

Moving on: "In case any police official shall have reason to believe that any person has committed, or is about to commit, within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof any breach of peace or violation of law and order, or that any person found within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof is charged with the commission of crime in the state of Missouri, against whom criminal proceedings shall have been issued, or when any person may have committed an offense within view of a member of such police force, said police official may cause such person to be arrested by any member of the police force."

Are you saying that a police officer who sees a person with an openly carried weapon can detain you based on the presence of a weapon?

"544.170. 1. All persons arrested and confined in any jail or other place of confinement by any peace officer, without warrant or other process, for any alleged breach of the peace or other criminal offense, or on suspicion thereof, shall be discharged from said custody within twenty-four hours from the time of such arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal offense by the oath of some credible person, and be held by warrant to answer to such offense. "

How would you describe a person who is about to commit a crime? Its all based on belief which is not clearly defined anywhere by anyone. Everything is up to the interpretation of the police officer. The obvious presence of a weapon v the discreet presence of a weapon is an unnecessary argument. Unarmed people commit crimes as well. Therefore, a weapon that is carried openly may not be basis for RAS. Especially if it is carried in an appropriate manner.

LMTD said:
Carrying a blueray dvd player wearing a blue shirt across the parking lot of a Wal-Mart that just called in a report of a man wearing a blue shirt stealing a DVD player IS RAS.

No it is not. If approached by a police officer who believes you committed a theft, he will ask you questions first, because he knows its not RAS. If you provide him a receipt, then he moves on. By your argument, he could detain you for up to 24 hours for wearing a blue shirt and carrying a blu-ray player.

Would you say that openly carrying a weapon is an inchoate offense? It may be considered a substantial step, say to committing armed assault. Should you decide to open your mouth and let the wrong words fall out, like "I would have..." or "I could..." indicating your meditation on effecting bodily harm to an individual, then we have RAS, and a lot more, leading into another debate, much like the one in Maplewood right now.

peterarthur · Apr 3, 2011

zekester said:
But the law is still on your side..

52 F.3d 194
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-1675.
United States Court of Appeals

In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

The way I read this...if an innocent person is apt to react to the LEO in the way that most would...still not RAS...

And me personally, if I am stopped for no reason...hell yeah I am going to be angry.

Just be careful, outward manifestations of anger ARE ILLEGAL under some code like KC municipality. Being drunk, angry and several other restrictions could LEGALLY get you arrested. You are warned.

peterarthur · Apr 3, 2011

afcarry said:
If I do something illegal, yes, ignorance is no defense whatsoever. If a police officer does something illegal, I guarantee its a very effective defense in court...for him.

Moving on: "In case any police official shall have reason to believe that any person has committed, or is about to commit, within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof any breach of peace or violation of law and order, or that any person found within the city or on public property of said city beyond the corporate limits thereof is charged with the commission of crime in the state of Missouri, against whom criminal proceedings shall have been issued, or when any person may have committed an offense within view of a member of such police force, said police official may cause such person to be arrested by any member of the police force."

Are you saying that a police officer who sees a person with an openly carried weapon can detain you based on the presence of a weapon?

"544.170. 1. All persons arrested and confined in any jail or other place of confinement by any peace officer, without warrant or other process, for any alleged breach of the peace or other criminal offense, or on suspicion thereof, shall be discharged from said custody within twenty-four hours from the time of such arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal offense by the oath of some credible person, and be held by warrant to answer to such offense. "

How would you describe a person who is about to commit a crime? Its all based on belief which is not clearly defined anywhere by anyone. Everything is up to the interpretation of the police officer. The obvious presence of a weapon v the discreet presence of a weapon is an unnecessary argument. Unarmed people commit crimes as well. Therefore, a weapon that is carried openly may not be basis for RAS. Especially if it is carried in an appropriate manner.

No it is not. If approached by a police officer who believes you committed a theft, he will ask you questions first, because he knows its not RAS. If you provide him a receipt, then he moves on. By your argument, he could detain you for up to 24 hours for wearing a blue shirt and carrying a blu-ray player.

Would you say that openly carrying a weapon is an inchoate offense? It may be considered a substantial step, say to committing armed assault. Should you decide to open your mouth and let the wrong words fall out, like "I would have..." or "I could..." indicating your meditation on effecting bodily harm to an individual, then we have RAS, and a lot more, leading into another debate, much like the one in Maplewood right now.

Open carry in the vicinity of a shooting that was just called in COULD be RAS. OC by itself CAN be RAS if a crime was just committed by someone OCing. Fitting the description of a perp just strengthens the RAS.

LMTD · Apr 4, 2011

OC for ME said:
LEO: ....Edited by LMTD....." excuse me sir, could you please show me your receipt for that item?"

Dude with blue shirt: ....officer, why am I being detained?

LEO: (choice to make).....inserted answer, "Sir we just got a call on a man wearing a blue shirt stealing a DVD player, would you mind showing me your receipt?" He would then observe body language, eye contact, movements and expect some sort of reply within a couple of seconds. depending upon a combination of those things and the response he should either allow them to leave or if he can articulate that the second response was evasive he could demand ID etc as RAS had been qualified.

And folks wonder why LE gets a bad rap.

Notice BOTH are questions, answers would indeed be voluntary consent.

LE gets a bad rap because of a few poorly operating officers make the group as a whole look bad, just like poorly operating firearms owners make gun owners look bad.

It is all about standards and how they impose those standards on others. On average, most people hold LE to a much higher standard and in doing so are quick to make a mountain out of any mole hill they find. A cop does a rolling stop at a stop sign "he only did that because he is a cop, has to get to the doughnut shop!" when in reality there may be a whole host of reasons or you know what, perhaps he just grew up in St Louis where for a huge portion of the population stop signs are "optional" and in his entire career he has never issued a citation for a rolling stop himself since he does it too.

We simply want the perfect human as police officers in all aspects. Polite, easy going, loud, assertive, aggressive, caring, neutral, etc. Well we can't have it all and sometimes LE make mistakes, sometimes it is assuming someone is up to no good and they quash rights and other times it is thinking it is a normal day and a simple traffic stop and they get killed because of the mistake.

They ain't perfect and neither are we and that is why many are here, to discuss such things without being condemned or condemning. Or at least that is why I am here.

OC in Missouri remains controversial, demonstrating the right so others become curious and learn for themselves is a positive thing for all parties LE included, the guys with the guns are not the bad guys all the time or in the case of OC it is very rare. The key is simply, there is a fine line between educating and manipulating and a bit of gray area in the middle.

LMTD · Apr 5, 2011

OK,

so you made exactly my point, I thought you had an opposing one.

LMTD · Apr 6, 2011

OC for ME said:
If your point is that we all make mistakes, agreed, that is a fact of life. Training, knowledge, and a professional approach will mitigate many mistakes on the job no matter what the job is.

My point was simply this: If the officer has RAS, the officer is not violating the law, if he does not have RAS he IS violating the law.

Blue shirt with dvd no RAS
Blue shirt with dvd with report of stolen merchandise by credible reporter yes RAS

OC no RAS
OC with report of criminal activity from credible reporter RAS

Yes, I want all police officers to go home safe at the end of the day, I also want all citizens to go home at the end of the day.

RAS is not quite as defined as we have simplified it in these scenarios however, it is not a lot tougher that what has been laid out.

That is what makes the Darrow case such a stupid issue the be beating to death, it is a RAS debate. The only person whom knows is the officer whom detained him, he felt he had RAS satisfied. The only way to know is if it heads to court, then the officer will be accused of violating Mr. Darrow's rights aka now the officer is innocent until proven guilty and they will have to prove he Didn't have RAS and acted maliciously.

I can not speak for the officer or Mr. Darrow and what happened. I can say that it is plausible either way because RAS is something officers deal with every day. Brett has revealed his story here and it sounds like RAS is most certainly in question and if he pursues it we will likely all find out, if he does not, the debate will likely never die.

LMTD · Apr 6, 2011

OC for ME said:
I am properly informed regarding RAS, thanks and +1 to you Sir.

NP and I am not sure where it seemed we were opposed on views but its all good.

Aknazer · Apr 8, 2011

LMTD said:
My point was simply this: If the officer has RAS, the officer is not violating the law, if he does not have RAS he IS violating the law.

Blue shirt with dvd no RAS
Blue shirt with dvd with report of stolen merchandise by credible reporter yes RAS

OC no RAS
OC with report of criminal activity from credible reporter RAS

Yes, I want all police officers to go home safe at the end of the day, I also want all citizens to go home at the end of the day.

RAS is not quite as defined as we have simplified it in these scenarios however, it is not a lot tougher that what has been laid out.

That is what makes the Darrow case such a stupid issue the be beating to death, it is a RAS debate. The only person whom knows is the officer whom detained him, he felt he had RAS satisfied. The only way to know is if it heads to court, then the officer will be accused of violating Mr. Darrow's rights aka now the officer is innocent until proven guilty and they will have to prove he Didn't have RAS and acted maliciously.

I can not speak for the officer or Mr. Darrow and what happened. I can say that it is plausible either way because RAS is something officers deal with every day. Brett has revealed his story here and it sounds like RAS is most certainly in question and if he pursues it we will likely all find out, if he does not, the debate will likely never die.

Another possibility is that the cop was out to harass him as he felt that he could come up with RAS after the fact or that he simply didn't care. I can especially see the RAS after the fact argument if it really is as easy to get as some people say.

nrepuyan · Apr 8, 2011

REALteach4u said:
The fact is that LEOs all too often are caught playing the card: I'm a cop and I know the law, so don't try to tell me the law.

going to have to disagree with you there. what a blanket stereotype.

LMTD · Apr 8, 2011

Aknazer said:
Another possibility is that the cop was out to harass him as he felt that he could come up with RAS after the fact or that he simply didn't care. I can especially see the RAS after the fact argument if it really is as easy to get as some people say.

The harass thing, I doubt. The RAS after the fact, well yeah, that is why they make contact in the first place and why every lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to engage in discussions with them, simply ask if you are free to go.

Profiling?

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate